[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
I forgot the line that says: "Oliver pointed out the immediate problem but .."

On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 06:45:48AM -0700, wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 02:17:46PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> > >>>>> "yodaiken" == yodaiken <> writes:
> > yodaiken> It's not even clear how preempt is supposed to interact with SCHED_FIFO.
> >
> > How so ? The POSIX specification is not clear enough or it is not to be followed ?
> POSIX makes no specification of how scheduling classes interact - unless something changed
> in the new version.
> But more than that, the problem of preemption is much more complex when you have
> task that do not share the "goodness fade" with everything else. That is, given a
> set of SCHED_OTHER processes at time T0, it is reasonable to design the scheduler so
> that there is some D so that by time T0+D each process has become the highest priority
> and has received cpu up to either a complete time slice or a I/O block. Linux kind of
> has this property now, and I believe that making this more robust and easier to analyze
> is going to be an enormously important issue. However, once you add SCHED_FIFO in the
> current scheme, this becomes more complex. And with preempt, you cannot even offer the
> assurance that once a process gets the cpu it will make _any_ advance at all.
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Victor Yodaiken
> Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.

Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:1.273 / U:0.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site